26
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1987
ON FACTORS HE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT WHEN MAKING A DECISION WHETHER TO PROSECUTE, MR THOMAS SAID THAT THERE MUST BE A REASONABLE PROSPECT OF SECURING A CONVICTION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC JUSTICE, NOR OF THE PUBLIC PURSE, THAT WEAK, OR BORDERLINE, CASES SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.
OTHER FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING WHERE THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC JUSTICE LAY WERE:
* WHAT ARE THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE?
* HOW SERIOUS WAS IT?
*
WHAT WERE ITS PRACTICAL EFFECTS?
* WHAT EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THERE?
* WHAT IS THE ATTITUDE OF THE SUSPECT?
*
*
HOW WOULD THE DECISION TO LAUNCH A PROSECUTION AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE?
HOW SERIOUS A VIEW WOULD A COURT TAKE OF THE OFFENCE IF THERE WERE A CONVICTION?
* WOULD THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROSECUTION BE OUT OF ALL
PROPORTION TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENCE OR TO THE PENALTY A COURT WOULD BE LIKELY TO IMPOSE?
MR THOMAS SAID THAT THE LIST, THOUGH NOT EXHAUSTIVE, WAS SUFFICIENT TO INDICATE THAT JUDGEMENT WHETHER TO PROSECUTE ULTIMATELY DEPENDED ON A BROAD VIEW OF THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
ON THE POINT THAT HIS DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE MR ALAN BOND HAD BEEN VIEWED AS REFLECTING ADVERSELY ON HONG KONG'S STANDARDS IN THE SECURITIES FIELD AND ON ITS REPUTATION AS A FINANCIAL CENTRE, MR THOMAS SAID THAT SUCH ALLEGATION PRESUPPOSED THAT A PROSECUTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT, WHICH WAS THE VERY POINT AT ISSUE.
HE SAID THE COMMISSIONER FOR SECURITIES WAS RIGHTLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE MATTER AND WAS IN CONTACT WITH HIS CHAMBERS AND WITH THE POLICE.
+ REQUESTED THAT THE POLICE UNDERTAKE AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND CHECK THE RECORDS OF THE JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS PRESENT AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE TO ASCERTAIN EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID.
+ RECEIVED REPRESENTATIONS FROM MR BOND'S LAWYERS AND I DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH MY ADVISERS IN CHAMBERS.
/HE ADDED